Cenvat reversal with interest bars further Rule 6 demand where incidental by-products are not exempted final products.

Under the amended Cenvat scheme, proportionate reversal of credit with interest can displace a further Rule 6 demand based on exempted clearances where common inputs and input services are used for both dutiable and exempt outputs. The record showed that the assessee had reversed the quantified credit amounts, paid interest, and supported the reversals by certification, so the additional demand was not sustainable to that extent. Goods arising incidentally in manufacture as by-products or waste were not treated as exempted final products for Rule 6 purposes, particularly after credit regularisation under the amended framework. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand raised under Rule 6 could be sustained when the assessee had reversed proportionate Cenvat credit with interest under the amended scheme. (ii) Whether the goods emerging during manufacture were exempted final products or only by-products or waste so as to attract Rule 6 liability.

Issue (i): Whether the demand raised under Rule 6 could be sustained when the assessee had reversed proportionate Cenvat credit with interest under the amended scheme.

Analysis: The dispute concerned common inputs and input services used for both dutiable and exempted outputs. The amended Cenvat regime, including the retrospective changes relied upon by the assessee, permitted proportionate reversal of credit with interest in lieu of the earlier demand model based on a percentage of the value of exempted clearances. The record showed that the assessee had reversed the quantified credit amounts and paid interest, and the reversals were supported by certification.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable to the extent it ignored the proportionate reversals and interest paid; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods emerging during manufacture were exempted final products or only by-products or waste so as to attract Rule 6 liability.

Analysis: The goods in question arose incidentally in the course of manufacture and were treated as by-products or waste rather than consciously manufactured final products. The reasoning accepted that such emergent goods do not stand on the same footing as exempted final products for the purpose of Rule 6 liability, particularly where the input credit position has already been regularised under the amended framework.

Conclusion: Rule 6 liability was not attracted on these facts; this issue is also decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penalty were set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the assessee became entitled to the consequential fiscal relief recognised in the order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exempted clearances are only by-products or waste arising incidentally in manufacture, and the assessee has made the statutorily permitted proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit with interest under the amended scheme, a further demand based on the value of such clearances is not exigible.

---